Talk:Target (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Target (Australia) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
Flag
Portal
Target (Australia) is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Antique cash register This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, which aims to improve all articles related to retailing.

Contents

[edit] Arrow supermarket

Any comments about the "Arrow" supermarket, which Target supposedly owned?

CJ

[edit] Target Corporation vs Target Australia

Has there ever been any dispute between Target Corporation in the US and Target Australia? How is it they exist with the same name and logo without such a dispute? Barrylb 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This article I found has an interesting sentence: Coles Myer holds the rights from Kmart and Target Corporation to use the Kmart and Target names in Australia and New Zealand. [1] 68.226.61.4 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] References needed

This article needs references to back it up, since it doesn't have any. The one thing that I am concerned about is where the facts in the "Rights to the Target Logo and name were granted to Myer Emporium Ltd.(now Coles Myer), by the Dayton Hudson Corporation (now known as Target Corporation)" sentence comes from. The Hoovers source that I mentioned above is ambiguous, it can be interpreted just as the sentence in question or it can mean that international copyright law allows for Coles Myer to use the name and Target Corp. can't do anything about it. 68.226.61.4 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the {{unreferenced}} template that I have inserted without reason. I am reinserting it. 68.226.61.4 19:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA, pronunciation of "Tarzhay"

The pronunciation of "Tarzhay" needs to be rewritten as per WP:MOSIPA. The article tries to illustrate two ways to pronounce it, but the wordage means nothing to me. I am adding the {{cleanup-ipa}} template to the top of the article. Also, I suppose the normal pronunciation for "Target" could be added. 68.226.61.4 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a citation for this pronunciation, I don't think we will find one on the internet. I have experienced it though. We have two choices: delete the section entirely, or leave it and take away the citation needed tag. -- Barrylb 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

These are not really proper 'references' but these do confirm there are people out there that use the term in Australia:
  • "Simon Target (pron. Tar-Zhay) joined the Chaser... " http://www.cnnnn.com/cnnnn/about/
  • "Target are having a HUGE underwear sale starting tomorrow." "Thanks for letting us know, Salixia. I just looked at the catalogue then! Might pop over to Tar-zhay tomorrow." [2]

I don't know about finding a good citation for the "tongue-in-cheek" pronunciation, but I doubt you'll find many Australians aware of the stores who aren't also familiar with this little joke. I have, however, made amendments to both the Australian English and French transcriptions of the pronunciations to better reflect the phonetic and phonological reality, viz: AusE is non-rhotic so the syllable-final /r/ should not be there; in both AusE and in French (at least in this word) the first vowel is front [a], not the low back vowel; French does not have phonetic lengthening of this vowel, but AusE does; and finally, the final vowel in French would be a monophthong, not a diphthong. Thylacoleo 08:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV discussion

The discussion around Target repositioning itself away from discount department stores is highly subjective. Target may have this as a corporate strategy, but I suspect the large majority of Australian consumers would still regard Target fairly and squarely as a discount department store. Murtoa 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

A few sections of the article seem quite irrelevant, not least of which is the detailed section on Lay-bys. I believe this section at least should be deleted, and the article condensed overall. Murtoa 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Management section is mostly non-notable and is bordering along trade secret. If no objections then I am deleting it. Tuxide 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Management section as I said I would with my reason being in my last post. Tuxide 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

Isn't that a just a joke from a Kath & Kim skit?